Connect with us

Robicheaux et al. – Our Day in Federal Court

Published

on

Marriage Equality has swept the land over the last year since the ruling in Windsor vs. The United States. This week was no different with the striking of the Indiana ban and the 10th Circuit upholding a lower court’s decision in the Utah case.  Another case went to Federal Court this week – our very own little case here in Louisiana.

If you’ve been paying attention to my articles and following us, you’ve seen this little case evolve over the past 11 months. 

On Wednesday June 25th 2014, my husband and I woke up and did our morning routine. This morning would be a little different, we weren’t preparing for work, or to go on an outing.  We were preparing for Federal Court; the day had finally come for Louisiana’s equality case to go on trial.

As we entered the court room, which was filled to capacity with an overflow room next door, there was much chatter among the people, giving their opinions one way or another on what they thought the judge would say or ask. The feeling in the courtroom was one of excitement, but yet some caution. We felt the supporting vibe that was all around us and that would continue to follow us throughout the entire day.

Judge Feldman took his seat; he carefully explained what he expected in his courtroom. Feldman referred to the case as one of “insatiable national interest” and would not tolerate any outbursts. From the get go, the man commanded a certain kind of respect that, like him or not, you appreciated. Let me just say for the record, I like the man and highly respect him.

The judge allotted 30 minutes to each side. So the volleying of tennis match begins. The judge asked his questions, often times joking with the attorneys about needing whiskey in their cups instead of water — Because that’s how we roll in the Big Easy.

Feldman went on to say - 

“I wonder if the constitutional rights of the person in Windsor are properly defined as being the same rights as here today. Windsor basically said the federal government could not discriminate against New York. May or may not Louisiana do what the federal government cannot do itself?”

Feldman drilled his questions and statements out in commanding fashion, “I accept the fact the plaintiffs have a sense of having a grievance. The issue before the court is if that grievance rises to constitutional dignity.”

As the defense took the podium to hammer their side, the judge asks of Kyle Duncan, the lawyer from the attorney general’s office who represented the state: “There are 13 district courts that disagree with you. Why are you right? And keep in mind I mentored some of those judges.”

That state argued that in Windsor (the state only quoted from seven pages as their defense,) Kennedy wrote that the state of New York had a constitutional right to have its voters choose whether to have same-sex marriage and that the government could not interfere with that. Voters and Louisiana also had that same right when they put the marriage ban in place, according to Duncan.  While we disagree, the question will come down to does it violate federal constitutional rights?

After the arguments, the judge pulled something that I see daily as I watch Days of Our Lives. Originally it was decided by all parties, mainly Feldman, that the only section of the lawsuit that would be handled in this hearing was recognition of the out of state marriages, leaving the in state marriage question and the 1st amendment question to a later time. But Judge Feldman stated he did not want to “piecemeal” this decision.  “I feel uncomfortable resolving some issues one way or the other and not all issues one way or another,” explained Feldman.

Overall we are happy with that decision, giving the chance for every LGBT couple currently residing in Louisiana the opportunity to marry in their home. To deal with this issue, the judge brought counsel for all parties into his chambers. 

The ultimate decision is that Judge Feldman wants more briefs from the parties that will be due in 21 days. He will then decide if he wants replies from each side and then another oral argument session. In my opinion, and it’s my opinion only, I don’t think he will call for more arguments, everything was said today in court. I am taking a stab, but I believe that he will rule on this case sometime in mid to late August or early September. There is a lot of precedence out there for him to look at with all the other favorable district court rulings, not to mention a favorable higher court ruling in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that came down while we were in court.

We pray for a favorable ruling, and feel good about our day in court.  However the ruling comes out, we expect the state to appeal, and we will definitely appeal a non-favorable ruling. We have come too far on this path to stop now! On behalf of my husband and I, and all the other plaintiffs, I’d like to say thank you to everyone who has sent us words of encouragement, and has supported us from day one. You don’t know what it means to have those positive things flow into our email boxes and on face book, we see a lot of negativity out there so it’s nice to see your support and love– To keep up with our case please like our Facebook page and navigate to our website.

 

 

bio.jpgDerek Penton-Robicheaux, 36, is a native of Mississippi and a longtime resident of New Orleans.  He holds degrees in computer information systems and paramedicine.

 After more than five years together, Derek and his husband, Jonathan Penton-Robicheaux, were legally married in Iowa on Sept. 23, 2012. The two are the first plaintiffs involved in the Federal Same-Sex Marriage Lawsuit in Louisiana, Robicheaux et al. v Caldwell.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

LA Mayor a ‘Communist’ Alleges Fox News Host With Ties to Trump Nominee

Published

7 hours ago

on

January 13, 2025

By

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a six-term Democratic former U.S. Representative, is being branded a “solid communist” and a “communist sympathizer” by a Fox News host whose husband is a Trump cabinet nominee. The attack comes as the city deals with the massive wildfires that have killed 24 people and caused tremendous and historic damage to over 60 square miles of California. More than 12,000 structures reportedly have been destroyed and 92,000 people are under evacuation orders.

Fox News’ Rachel Campos-Duffy is married to former Fox News host and Republican former U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy, President-elect Donald Trump’s Transportation Secretary nominee. She has a history of throwing around the divisive “communist” label. On Monday, she joined the pile-on of attacks against the L.A. mayor.

“You know, listen, a lot of people have been talking about, you know, who’s to blame, you know, whether it’s [Governor] Gavin Newsom or the mayor,” Campos-Duffy told the right-wing channel’s viewers in what appeared to be prepared remarks. “A lot of people don’t realize that Karen Bass is actually, you know, we talk about these left wing, left wing policies.”

READ MORE: Senator Suggests Unusual Interpretation of ‘Advice and Consent’ Responsibility

“She has ties to communism —she was cutting sugar cane in Cuba, um, she’s had 15 trips to Cuba, met with Fidel Castro,” Campos Duffy continued. “She is a solid communist, so don’t be surprised that your policies make your city, um, look like this when you, when you put a communist, somebody, a communist and a communist sympathizer at the top of your um of the heap as the mayor of Los Angeles, it’s uh, not surprising. Um, they manage things— look at how Cuba’s managed and now look at this.”

Campos-Duffy, a devout MAGA supporter and longtime Trump defender, earlier this month called January 6 rioters “political dissidents,” a term traditionally reserved for individuals persecuted for opposing authoritarian or oppressive governmental authority or policies.

Bass has indeed has traveled to Cuba, according to multiple reports, and “spent part of the 1970s working construction in Fidel Castro’s Cuba with the Venceremos Brigade, a group that has organized annual trips to Cuba for young, leftist Americans for half a century,” The Atlantic reported in 2020.

READ MORE: Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports

That was five decades ago, work that began when Bass was 19 and doing volunteer work.

“The best way to think of Bass’s politics at the time—and now—is ‘as a Black activist who was deeply concerned about what the activists are raising today: systemic racism,'” Bass told Edward-Isaac Dovere, when he wrote for The Atlantic. She added: “I was also deeply concerned on the international front about issues like apartheid in South Africa and supporting the independence movements in Africa. And a lot of times that did not align with U.S. policy.”

Bass has said point-blank she is not a communist.

“I’m not a socialist. I’m not a communist,” Bass told NBC News in 2020. “I’ve belonged to one party my entire life and that’s the Democratic Party, and I’m a Christian.”

Political commentator Keith Olbermann declared he hopes Mayor Bass sues Campos-Duffy “into the ground.”

Watch the video clip below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts

 

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

 

Continue Reading

News

Senator Suggests Unusual Interpretation of ‘Advice and Consent’ Responsibility

Published

11 hours ago

on

January 13, 2025

By

A freshman Republican Senator is promoting an unusual interpretation of the Senate’s role in the constitutionally mandated “advice and consent” responsibility.

U.S. Senator Katie Britt, elected in 2022, is the first woman Alabama voters have sent to the U.S. Senate. She gained national attention, and bipartisan criticism, after delivering the Republican response to President Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address. During her speech, Britt criticized President Biden’s immigration policies and referred to an incident involving human trafficking, suggesting in her remarks a woman had been sexually trafficked because of Biden’s policies. However, as NBC News reported, the incident occurred two decades earlier, in Mexico, not in the United States.

READ MORE: Wildfire Relief Tied to Debt Ceiling? Trump, GOP Spark Outrage After Mar-a-Lago Meeting

At the time, even Republicans were outraged and mystified by her speech. One GOP strategist told The Daily Beast it was “one of our biggest disasters ever.” A Trump advisor told Rolling Stone, “What the hell am I watching right now?” as The Guardian reported.

This weekend, Britt spoke with CNN’s Jake Tapper about President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees. Senate Republicans are beginning hearings this week, CBS News reports.

Senator Britt, an attorney, told Tapper that Trump’s “great nominees” will be on Capitol Hill, where they will “have the opportunity not only to make their case” to the members of various committees, “but they’ll have their opportunity to make their case to the American people of why they are best, where they are best suited to move President Trump’s agenda forward.”

In contrast, Senator Angus King (I-ME) recently outlined his view of the Senate’s role in evaluating cabinet nominees. In an op-ed last week, he wrote that a president’s “advisors, and especially Cabinet Members, must be qualified for the sake of the people they represent.”

“My position on Cabinet nominees has always boiled down to two priorities: the candidate needs to be experienced and capable, and not have a stance that is hostile to the department or bureau they would be leading,” Senator King added. “The framers of our Constitution set up a Senate confirmation process as a check on the executive branch to make sure that all parts of government are working by the people and for the people.”

READ MORE: ‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts

Senator Britt appeared to suggest alignment with Trump’s goals should be a key qualification, telling Tapper that she and the Senate will see if they “are best suited to move President Trump’s agenda forward.”

Tapper continued to press her.

“Why would you think somebody who’s willing to lie about the election results in Pennsylvania is going to restore integrity in the Justice Department the way that you are calling for?” Tapper asked.

After a brief pause, Britt replied: “Look, Jake, I’ve had very direct conversations with each and every one of these nominees that I’ve had the opportunity to sit down with. I take my duty as a United States senator seriously, Article Two, Section Two, mandates that I do.”

“We have an obligation both to the American people and to the president, to ask these tough questions. I asked that question very directly. And with each and every nominee, the answers that I have been given with them, has satisfied me that they’re gonna move forward in that direction.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Wildfire Relief Tied to Debt Ceiling? Trump, GOP Spark Outrage After Mar-a-Lago Meeting

Published

14 hours ago

on

January 13, 2025

By

House Republicans, especially the California delegation, are facing sharp criticism after spending portions of the weekend with President-elect Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort and residence. They reportedly discussed ways to take the unprecedented approach of tying passage of relief funds—for the Golden State’s historic wildfire disaster—to raising the debt ceiling, as the fires continue to burn and the death toll rises to 24 people.

“Of the nearly two dozen House Republicans who attended the Sunday dinner at Mar-a-Lago, where this option was discussed, several are caucus leaders and appropriators with major influence in upcoming budget reconciliation and government funding negotiations,” Politico reports. “Trump also discussed the wildfires Saturday night with a group of House Republicans from California, New York and New Jersey.”

According to J.D. Wolf of MeidasTouch News, the California GOP members of Congress “chose to leave the state at its most vulnerable moment,” and “have drawn criticism for abandoning their … state during the crisis, opting instead to join Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago.”

READ MORE: ‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts

“California [GOP] Representatives Jay Obernolte, Tom McClintock, Kevin Kiley, Doug LaMalfa, Darrell Issa, Ken Calvert, Vince Fong, and Young Kim were spotted in a photo with Trump this weekend when they could have been back home seeking ways to help even if the fire isn’t in their district,” he declared. “Instead, these lawmakers have prioritized meeting with Trump over exercising leadership in their home state. Their absence sends a troubling message to their state.”

In a stern rebuke, Wolf added: “In doing so, they have not only abandoned their duty to Californians but also cast doubt on their priorities and dedication as elected officials.” He also wrote: “Californians are left wondering if these leaders will ever prioritize their needs over political maneuvering.”

One House Republican from California was “not invited,” according to Politico’s Meredith Lee Hill.

“But all the talk of unity at Mar-a-Lago this weekend only went so far – Trump did not invite David Valadao (R-Calif.), 1 of the 10 House Rs who voted to impeach after Jan. 6, to the mtg of CA, NY and NJ GOP members.”

READ MORE: Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports

Valadao’s presence would have made sense. Hill reports he is a caucus chief and senior appropriator.

Trump, who has a history of trying to withhold relief aid to California, has been accused of politicizing the tragedy, which Politico notes, “could become the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history.”

It may become even more costly.

The Associated Press reports, “firefighters are preparing for a return of dangerous winds that could again stoke the flames on Monday.”

Over the weekend, on his social media website, Trump reposted this:

View the social media post above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘45, 47, Felon’: Trump Sentenced But Expert Warns ‘Now the Gloves Could Come Off’

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.